Earlier today, a collection of former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration garnered a lot of media attention for voicing opposition to California’s Proposition 19. As Jane Hamsher explained:

Nine former DEA heads held a press conference this morning to promote their letter to Eric Holder, asking the Justice Department to intervene and challenge Prop 19 if it passes (PDF). They claim that since the Justice Department moved so quickly to oppose the Arizona immigration law, it’s their obligation to do the same here.

I worked directly with DEA Administrators Bensinger, Mullen, and Lawn in the 1980s, and have had debates or conversations with Bonner, Constantine, and Hutchinson.

First, this letter (PDF) is the clearest indication that the drug prohibition establishment recognizes the political attractiveness and unique importance of Prop. 19. I cannot recall any previous collaboration of former DEA Administrators of this kind. If our national marijuana prohibition policy were not so clearly failing and not so close to being replaced with real controls, they would never have mobilized in this way to defend it. If Prop. 19 were not proposing a system of control that is so logical and straight forward that it is widely politically attractive, they would not be mobilizing this kind of collaboration.

Second, this letter makes a most cursory defense of our failed marijuana policy in calling for an extraordinary remedy: block Prop. 19 in the court because it is a political challenge to premises of the federal law.

Do the former DEA Administrators defend the federal marijuana prohibition with evidence that marijuana’s harms to users are so great that users must be denied the liberty to take the minimal risks attendant to its use? No, they cite an annual "strategy document" that has historically been an instrument of political propaganda, and was never taken seriously a genuine policy or planning document for addressing public safety or public health problems.

Do the former Administrators defend the current prohibition policy because it reduces crime? Of course not.

Do they offer any argument that the United States will be harmed if California legalizes adult use of marijuana? No.

Do they suggest that the international prestige of the United States will be undermined in any respect of Prop. 19 passes? Of course not, for the opposite is true as suggested by the recent Washington Post commentary of Mexico’s former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda.

Third, they are wrong on the key question regarding the merits of the lawsuit they desire the Attorney General to file. Proposition 19 withdraws California enforcement of its marijuana law which is its Constitutional prerogative. The Supreme Court ruled in the Printz case that Congress cannot "commandeer" state officials to enforcement federal laws. This is different from the Arizona immigration situation in which Arizona sought to authorize state conduct based on federal immigration status, and to create offenses based on federal immigration status. Immigration is explicitly a Federal power in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Marijuana prohibition is not in the Constitution. Federal power over marijuana is based on the commerce clause. Our law is filled with areas in which there is both federal and state regulation of various aspects of commerce. The Controlled Substances Act, unlike the Federal Communications Act, does not exclude states from regulation.

On its face, Prop. 19 is a completely different concept. Historically, Prop. 19 is akin to the act of the New York legislature repealing its alcohol prohibition law in 1923 which was perfectly lawful and Constitutional.

Eric E. Sterling is the President of The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a private non-profit educational organization that helps educate the nation about criminal justice problems. As a former Assistant Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (1979-1989), Mr. Sterling was responsible for writing federal drug laws. He serves on the advisory board of Just Say Now.

Thank you for this diary, sir, and for lending your support to this fight.

Why anyone would credit anything these nine failed drug czars say about drug policy, after their abject lack of leadership in solving our nation’s drug crisis, is beyond me. In a proper world, they would hang their heads in silent shame, not be given a broad forum to opine as Very Serious People.

Something is wrong with our discourse, and these Nine Drug Czars are evidence of it, in the extreme.

Well, I still support prop 19 and hope it wins. In fact, I hope it wins by as wide a margin as possible as that too could send a message.

It’s never been clear to me though that even if passed it would become legal to own and use weed in CA since it is settled law (I thought) that federal laws take precedence over state laws and federal law prohibits owning and using weed. Perhaps the good news with that though is the PTB won’t risk using extraordinary efforts to defeat the bill since technically it still wouldn’t be legal.

THAT these DEA chiefs organized is very telling; they weren’t merely incompetant – it was on purpose! It would be very interesting to see how much these guys are still dipping into the riches flowing from prohibition.

Because the “drug war” is a cash cow for “law enforcement”. Whether its bloated budgets and equipment purchuses or simply siezing people’s assets. I got shaken down in a small town a few years back. I mean they really really really searched my car. All they wanted to do was to be able to impound my BMW.

But it seems to me there is a lot of room for taxes without the end price going up at all, perhaps down.

Right now there is a premium built into the price due to it’s illegality, at every stage. Where grown, pols must be bribed, crops protected, etc. Distribution lines require redundency and an acceptance of a certain percentage being lost, and finally the final “seller” makes a not-insubstantial profit for taking the risk of selling an illegal item.

You remove all of that, introduce market efficiencies at the growing and distribution levels, and it seems to me that you might be left with a $30 bag costing $25 and a good 50%-80% of that is tax.

(–It’s me, Norman B ["Deviations from the Norm"]. You & I both participated in Hemp Rallys and other events on the early Hemp Tours, in the early 1990s. I remember we were both at Arrowhead Ranch for a tribute to Cannabis Action Network, and in the Rockies at the Colorado Rainbow Gathering. I worked mainly with Debby Goldsberry of CAN, but also with Ben Masel of Weedstock, Steve Hager & Steve Bloom of High Times, etc.)

1)Where would you get the seeds?
2)What’s the polling on this issue? Anyone know the chances of this actually passing?
Bonus question: If it does pass, what are the chances of it getting overturned by a judge? That’s been happening a lot lately, esp. in Cali

From the perspective of someone who used to know someone who manufactured powders, I can tell you that this is very true. The costs for production is minimal. Like any other form of commerce, however, the workman is worthy of his hire. There must be profit at all levels. In my … friend’s experience these profits were typically 70-80% at street level. After all the higher levels had taken their cut.

It’s a good point, OFG. Pot may actually be cheaper even with taxation.

But wouldn’t that also call into question the estimates for tax revenue? What were those revenue estimates based in terms of volume? End-user prices? Production and distribution costs? Profit margin? This would be a very interesting thing to research.

I think revisionist hit on the core reason why the feds will never stop the war on drugs, money.

People say that the war has failed but has it really? The government agencies are not complaining about the 20 billion a year we spend on supression. The private prison industry isn’t complaining about the thousands of customers they house. The too big to fail banks are not refusing the billions they launder for the drug cartels.

California wants their share of the money to prop up their bankrupt state. All of the other reasons for legalizing pot are important but money is what drives the debate on both sides.

Clearly these former heads of the failed DEA must support the Mexican drug cartels, who stand to lose the most money if this legislation is passed by California voters. Perhaps they should be investigated.

its not just that. there is also the revenue to the state from making people pay fines and court costs. and then there is the recovery-industrial complex and all that mandated “treatment”. In my area we now have “surchurges”. So after you have paid your fines and probation you get to pay a service fee for 3 more years. There is just to much money to be made by the government. Thats the basis of their resistance.

Mr. Sterling, I have only one issue with your article. In it you state that our “national marijuana prohibition policy were not so clearly failing.” I submit that this policy is failed, not failing. It isn’t pining for the fjords, it’s dead. A minor point? Perhaps.

When you have the POTUS actively promoting decriminalization it’s not silly to think that it is likely to happen. But looking back at the popular opinion polls of the 1970s we barely see support for cannabis decriminalization moving from about 1 in 3 in favor. While the last 30 years haven’t been fun, it likely was good for the country to not go down the inane decriminalization path anyway. Simply decriminalizing possession would have done nothing but empower the Columbian cartels. Today we have support for legalization (not decrim) approaching 50%. Comparing today’s mood to that of the 1970s certainly makes me more hopeful that the idiocy of prohibitionist policy are nearing an end. I hope we can we keep the idiots at NORML from getting caught tooting cocaine with high ranking White House officials this time around, as that was the seminal event that broke the momentum back in the 1970s, turned everything around, and landed us where we are today. Then again the general consensus about cocaine is drastically different today than in the late 1970s as well. Regardless, that event was simply abject stupidity on the part of the activists.